Talk About Marriage banner
301 - 320 of 333 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter · #301 ·
Also, Dad may find himself the target of depositions during the divorce proceedings concerning the disposition of that rental property. If the other side's lawyers or accountants are suspicious, he could face some pretty uncomfortable questions, including of the intention to use the home as a haven for the son's assets.
Dad can ignore and not even show up as he has not given anything to son till divorce. The couple (including wife) benefited by living in the house during Marriage. There is really no case here, except paying rent using marital assets (legal)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,122 Posts
Dad can ignore and not even show up as he has not given anything to son till divorce. The couple (including wife) benefited by living in the house during Marriage. There is really no case here, except paying rent using marital assets (legal)
Not every woman is going to go along with the. Maybe she wants to be a homeowner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,669 Posts
The income tax is offset by mortgage deduction. The lawsuit will be thrown out in at least 20 states as all transactions are perfectly legal. Judges don't care if one partner blows away all the marital property. Only assets at time of divorce are considered
Yes, actually they do depending on the judge. Only assets at time of divorce unless there are assets being hidden/laundered through some scheme one party is not privy to. What you're describing is laundering the son's assets through a rental agreement with the parent. And the home is mortgaged, not fully owned by the Dad? Well that will complicate things when its time to gift it to the son.

And guess who's paying for all that investigation during divorce? You are. Let's say that the home is $240,000, with a 30 year mortgage at 4.5% and 20% down. Your marriage lasts 5 years. Typical rent on a property like that is about $2k/month. That's $120k you paid to Dad in rent. In that 5 years, Dad paid $20k in principal and ~$46k in interest. The other $54k is Dad's income. How much of that are you expecting back? If Dad doesn't charge you fair market value rent, or puts that profit back into the house equity in an unusual way, that's going to raise a whole new set of questions for your ex's legal investigators. By trying to pull this stunt you could very well cost yourself $90k in legal/accounting fees during your divorce as they try to unspool any scheme you've put together. That's whether what you did was ultimately legal or not. That's during the divorce. 3 years later when Dad tries to transfer the home to son, and new legal troubles could arise. Especially if deposition testimony denied any such plans.

Look. You're looking for silver bullets that just aren't there. Prenups, and postnups with full disclosure are your best tools for avoiding a long litigious divorce.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter · #305 ·
Yes, actually they do depending on the judge. Only assets at time of divorce unless there are assets being hidden/laundered through some scheme one party is not privy to. What you're describing is laundering the son's assets through a rental agreement with the parent. And the home is mortgaged, not fully owned by the Dad? Well that will complicate things when its time to gift it to the son.

And guess who's paying for all that investigation during divorce? You are. Let's say that the home is $240,000, with a 30 year mortgage at 4.5% and 20% down. Your marriage lasts 5 years. Typical rent on a property like that is about $2k/month. That's $120k you paid to Dad in rent. In that 5 years, Dad paid $20k in principal and ~$46k in interest. The other $54k is Dad's income. How much of that are you expecting back? If Dad doesn't charge you fair market value rent, or puts that profit back into the house equity in an unusual way, that's going to raise a whole new set of questions for your ex's legal investigators. By trying to pull this stunt you could very well cost yourself $90k in legal/accounting fees during your divorce as they try to unspool any scheme you've put together. That's whether what you did was ultimately legal or not. That's during the divorce. 3 years later when Dad tries to transfer the home to son, and new legal troubles could arise. Especially if deposition testimony denied any such plans.

Look. You're looking for silver bullets that just aren't there. Prenups, and postnups with full disclosure are your best tools for avoiding a long litigious divorce.
I don't understand your logic here, the son is getting full and sole benefit of home price appreciation + equity AND he is removing $120K from marital property. The argument about deposition is not valid, you don't need to answer hypothetical questions like future gifts to children, nor do you need to abide by any disclosure you made years ago. There is really no case 3 years later. Its not a silver bullet, the law has vested full authority to either partner in the marriage to use marital assets as they see fit during a marriage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter · #307 ·
Yes, actually they do depending on the judge. Only assets at time of divorce unless there are assets being hidden/laundered through some scheme one party is not privy to. What you're describing is laundering the son's assets through a rental agreement with the parent.
Its not laundering, both parties are aware of rental agreement and have signed up for it. There is no scheme, the home is a future gift
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,669 Posts
I don't understand your logic here, the son is getting full and sole benefit of home price appreciation + equity AND he is removing $120K from marital property. The argument about deposition is not valid, you don't need to answer hypothetical questions like future gifts to children, nor do you need to abide by any disclosure you made years ago. There is really no case 3 years later. Its not a silver bullet, the law has vested full authority to either partner in the marriage to use marital assets as they see fit during a marriage
No. The son is a renter. The Dad is getting the full benefit of rental income, appreciation, and equity. The son is paying $120k in rent. To say that that is removing it from marital property isn't exactly true. Why? Because the full $120k no longer exists. $46k of it is lost to mortgage interest. $10k(ish) to property taxes. $4k to insurance. That's $60k right there, or half. Is your intent to safeguard your money, or is it just to spite your spouse? Of the remaining $60k, only $20k will be coming back to the son with the house in the form of the equity portion of the mortgage payments. The other $40k is either still part of Dad's estate, or lost to the IRS in Dad's income tax from rental income. So you're paying $120k to get back $20k, plus <$40k in some separate future transfer. Say 3 more years of gifts under $15k to stay under the tax exempt gift level. Is that better than the son having bought the house initially?

Now the gift transfer. Dad may have tax liability on that gift. Depending on the size of Dad's estate, it could affect future gift ability, or estate taxes upon Dad's death. As far as the equity, in general on a gift of this type the basis on home price for the son will be the price Dad paid and not the FMV of the property at the time of gift while the gift amount deducted from Dad's estate will be the current FMV of the property. Which means that that equity may cause the son to pay higher capital gains tax on its future sale.

So in the end you are left with less than half of what you were shuffling off to Dad. Dad has probably lost money on the deal if he's returning the rental income. Son is probably on the hook for higher capital gains on the house.

And of course all of that is without taking into account the effect this type of move on the divorce itself. A contested divorce can be amazingly expensive. For a move like this to make any sense at all, your financial benefit has to outweigh the additional cost to litigate it in the divorce. You could very easily see yourself facing an $80k legal bill after the lawyers and accountants get done, all to "save" $60k. Is it still worth it? When instead of this scheme, you could have had a clear prenup and a less contentious and less expensive divorce?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,486 Posts
That's what I am trying to do here, 'work with the law'. However there are many options other than pre-nups I am trying to explore. One example, Dad buys a house and rents to Son and wife. Son pays rent for a few years and divorces. All rent payments are removed from marital property. Few years after divorce is final Dad gifts house to Son. This is perfectly legal in at least 20 states, in many cases judges don't want to hear about these legal transactions and your 'forensic accountants' can't do much
What if - horror of horrors I know - the son doesn't divorce? What if he decides NOT to cheat on his wife and they stay together? He just pays rent to his father for... ever?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
In the US assets aquired prior to marriage remain yours (separate property) so long as you do not co mingle them Inheritence is yours so long as you do not co mingle them. Unfortunately often times people co mingle their assets and it can then become considered marital property but in general those two principles are true. As an example you inherit 100,000 dollars from your mom or dad upon their death while you are married. You put that money into a bank account or mutual fund in your name only and it is separate property. Dump it into a joint account with your spouses name and it could be considered marital property and subject to division upon divorce.
For most people a prenuprial agreement serves three purposes:
1) Defining clearly your assets (and liabilities) coming into marriage
2) Specifying separate property earned during marriage and how that will be handled in event of divorce
3) Setting a standard for spousal support
There are of course other considerations depending upon your circumstances but these are the important consideration for many people.

Not really sure I understand your rental analogy but if a couple rents a home its a rental irregardless who it is being rented from. If the home is later gifted to a child after a divorce there is probably no issue there. Too many hypotheticals for me. Sorry I got involved in this!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,878 Posts
That's what I've been saying! They can just hire housekeepers and hookers. You guys don't feel any emotional connection to women anyway, why establish a financial connection to them?
None of us have said that, but your position is that, unless men are supplicants they hate women.
There really is nothing to discuss if that's your position.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,486 Posts
None of us have said that, but your position is that, unless men are supplicants they hate women.
There really is nothing to discuss if that's your position.
I've never said that, so you made that "position" up in your head.

You however have said straight out that women should be supplicants. But that isn't what this thread is about, it's weirdly about marrying women you hate and then lying about your money so WHEN you divorce them you can keep from having to pay child support.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,878 Posts
I've never said that, so you made that "position" up in your head.

You however have said straight out that women should be supplicants. But that isn't what this thread is about, it's weirdly about marrying women you hate and then lying about your money so WHEN you divorce them you can keep from having to pay child support.
You just did.
All I said was that him paying rent will come back to him should his father pass on.
You treated my simple statement as if I was saying that it was only for him.
Did you want me to write my answers in multi-paragraph form, with all kinds of sub-paragraphs and annotations and sub-points to cover all possible points that you might object to?

I can't help that you're believe that men want women in birth camps, only to give birth to children.
I'm not the only one here concerned about your mental health.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,486 Posts
I'm not the only one noticing what you are saying is beyond the rationale.
I see. So all the other posters who are saying this guy burying money in the yard to hide it from the judge so it won't be considered for child support, are they also saying what I'm saying is beyond rationale? All the other posters, 10 pages of it, agreeing that this person is taking the notion of a pre-nup, something I wholly support, beyond what is legal and is openly advocating for hiding assets in anticipation of what he sees as an inevitable divorce, ALL those other people who agree with me, they're saying that too? Tell me, are they in the room with you right now?

Quote EXACTLY what I said that is "beyond rationale." Or stop it.
 
301 - 320 of 333 Posts
Top